‘People’s mandate can’t be massacred’: Kerala High Court orders jailed councillor’s prison oath

The court noted that all other councillors affected by its June 24 judgment had already retaken their oath, but Sugathan alone could not do so because of his preventive detention. Holding that democratic procedures must be followed without defeating the electorate’s verdict, the high court directed prison authorities, the Mayor and designated corporation officials to complete the swearing-in inside the jail, while also allowing accredited media to cover the ceremony.

Justice P V Kunhikrishnan said that democracy, as envisaged under the Constitution, is not a mere majoritarian exercise, but a structured process governed by established procedures and normative principles. (Image enhanced using AI)

Councillor to take oath again

Sugathan, 43, was elected from Ward number 20 (Vazhottukonam) of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation in the local body elections held on December 9, 2025. The results were declared on December 13, and he took oath on December 21 before assuming office.

However, in a judgment delivered on June 24, 2026, the high court held that the oath taken by Sugathan and certain other councillors was not in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act. The court directed all of them to take a fresh oath within four weeks.

While the remaining councillors complied with the order, Sugathan could not because he had, in the meantime, been detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (KAAPA). The Corporation subsequently fixed July 14 for the fresh swearing-in ceremony.

The petitioner pointed out that although the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad, had granted him interim bail in two criminal cases to facilitate the oath-taking, he continued to remain in custody because of the preventive detention order under KAAPA. Unable to leave prison, he approached the high court seeking directions to enable him to complete the statutory oath.

Detainee can’t be released

During the hearing, Director General of Prosecution T Asaf Ali submitted that a person detained under preventive detention could not be released from custody, referring to Article 22(3) of the Constitution, under which certain safeguards available to arrested people do not apply to preventive detainees.

At the same time, the state informed the court that if directed, it was willing to make arrangements for administering the oath inside the prison itself.

The court noted that it had earlier asked the state to explore whether such an arrangement was legally and administratively possible after being informed that the councillor’s inability to take oath could affect the functioning of the elected municipal body.

No intention to massacre democracy

• “While issuing directions… this Court neither conceived nor intended to massacre democracy; rather, the directions are issued in the background of the constitutional mandate to preserve and strengthen the rule of law,” the court said.
• The judge further said democracy is not merely about numbers but about following constitutional procedures while respecting the mandate given by the people.
• Observing that the consequences of denying the councillor an opportunity to take the oath would be serious, the court said, “When the very pulse of democracy is made to collapse over a solitary, disputed oath, the duty of this court is to uphold the democracy.”
• This court neither conceived nor intended to massacre democracy; rather, the directions are issued in the background of the constitutional mandate to preserve and strengthen the rule of law.
• Democracy, as envisaged under the Constitution, is not a mere majoritarian exercise, but a structured process governed by established procedures and normative principles.
• This court is to see that the democratic process is conducted in a manner consistent with constitutional discipline, institutional integrity and the fundamental value of democracy.
• In this case, if the petitioner is not allowed to take the oath, serious consequences will follow.

Oath inside prison on July 14

Allowing the petition, the high court directed the Superintendent of Central Prison and Correctional Home, Viyyur, to make all necessary arrangements for the swearing-in ceremony inside the prison at 11 am on July 14.

It also permitted the Mayor of Thiruvananthapuram and the minimum required Corporation officials to enter the prison to administer the oath and complete all legal formalities.

The court also directed that accredited media people should also be allowed inside the prison to cover the ceremony, observing that the swearing-in of an elected councillor forms an integral part of the democratic process.